Posted on 10/08/2004 8:36:12 PM PDT by diabolicNYC
8:38PM CST
The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.
Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.
As soon as more details are available, they will be posted here immediately.
Given the chance, they would have penned in the DOI Preamble these stirring words: " . . . unalienable rights, among which are an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering."
LOL! Do you know how funny it is that you use Adams in support of your views when it was Adams who changed Jefferson's wording of the Declaration of Independence to have all of those references to God, which was passed by the Congress and not Jefferson's version. Which in turn really pissed Jefferson off.
Yes, Jefferson was into the enlightenment movement started in that paragon of virtue France, and his view were very much in the minority, and while much more time is spent today on Jefferson in the text books and less and less on Henry, Washington and Adams etc. The reason is very clear....liberals hate all their references to God as their reasoning for their actions.
You can pick and choose very carefully to try and support your views as todays dems have done with the rewriting of history books leaving out major players in our history and their words, so that they can keep the people ignorant, or you can take in the whole picture with a little effort on your part.
Some how I doubt you would be willing to make that journey.
LOL! So true, and thus the essence of Libertarianism.
Or does that admission cause you too much pain? That you could no longer expect the government to do for you what your religion cannot? That is, to FORCE your neighbors to behave as you think they should behave, even if their actions only OFFEND you instead of harming you.
You, apparently, have already judged your neighbors, found them wanting, and have decided that it is for government to step in and get them to behave.
Is this your vision of Freedom here in America?
That would be Freedom. That thing that scares the beejeezus out of tin pot wanna-be authoritarians like yourself. Nice to meet you Mrs. Grundy.
Oh, whatever. Your goals are one and the same.
If the Founding Fathers wanted humanist moral-liberal ideologues to interpret the BOR for people they would have instituted the Libertarian Party.
Maybe because Bush and Kerry were INVITED and were TOO SCARED to show up?
A Libertarian government would open the borders resulting in a skewing toward a more muslim society which would vote into power more of those that do not have our conept of religious freedom resulting in a more rapid loss of culture and freedom as we know it.
They can't give it up. It is fundamental to their philosophy. Government may impose no restrictions on the liberty of individuals unless that individuals actions harm other individuals.
After the terrorist kills your kids, you may sue the terrorists, IAW Libertarian philosophy.
If polls show that that candidate really no support, i.e., no probability of winning the states, he should not be included. Basically, if no one wants to see you, why should you be invited to the show.
Even the barely-sane Perot could manage it.
IMHO... yes. A 5 yo driving a motor-vehicle and drinking a beer is putting others at extreme risk for personal and property damage. The laws in this case would be much the same as they are right now.
Does a 5 yo operating a motor vehicle impose an inherent risk? Obviously it does - the child is physically uncable of controlling said vehicle. Chances are the car would be swerving erratically without the beer in hand! If the 5yo figured out how to keep the gas pedal down. This poses a clear and present danger and yes the police officer would be under his rights and protecting our right to life and property by stopping him.
Lady Heron wrote: What a joke, they think they are the only ones who live by the Constitution but ignore what the founding fathers knew about morals upholding the Constitution.
Reply: How could I forget. The Republican Party is the one with morals right?
Let me remind you... Bush is the one fighting for free and fair elections overseas. Yet, he refuses to participate in free and fair elections here at home.
He is our President yet he refuses to acknowledge to the will of the people (of which 57% have said they want 3rd parties in the debates). Why? Because he doesn't want to hear other alternatives to his programs and his ideas.
Where are Bush's morals? He will send people to fight and die, but won't give them a chance to voice their opinions?
Did any of you read what Bush's campaign spokesperson said last week? His name is Danny Diaz, and I quote: "This race is between the President of the United States and John Kerry. The voters will choose between those two candidates."
We will? And what if we don't? What then?
We will? And what if we don't? What then?
"All it takes is people voting their conscience instead of acting like they are betting on a football game and checking "the line." you said.
I agree to some extent but when checking the odds Kerry has a 100% chance of destroying over 225 years of our Constitutional Republic. Bush has erred in signing the anti 1st Amendment Campaign Finance Law but I still and once again have access to most any firearm for my collection of 1st Amendment guarantees. And he has taken out a lot of bad people who want to kill us just because they like to kill.
Otherwise We are very much in agreement. I voted for Perot in 92 and it got Clinton elected. If 3% of the voters vote Libertarian it takes votes from Bush and elects sKerry.
Voting my consciense is exercizing that Electing Bush now still gives us another chance to truely reform presidential politics. Electing sKerry dooms us to unknown and probably irreversable damage to our nations survival.
I just wish other candidates were allowed the opportunity to debate.
Big name candidates and big name parties spend big time dollars advertising in the medias that cover the campaign.
3rd party candidates, even with their names on 48 states have sparse resources to run political ads. So the media naturally ignores them. FEDERAL Campaign finance MONEY should be spread EVENLY between each candidate so as to allow 3rd party candidates on the ballot the so called equal access to the election process. Campaign finance laws now are only favorable to campaigns with big financial war chests and cheats 3rd party challengers who have no war chest or the ability to accumulate funding that flows with incumbants.
3rd party candidates only get negative press because they have to get arrested in protest for being excluded from fair and open election coverage including debates.
Constitutionally they are very correct in their actions.
But since when did our media focus on the real interpretation of how a constitutional republic works?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.